Enasidenib vs conventional care in older patients with late-stage mutant-<i>IDH2</i> relapsed/refractory AML: a randomized phase 3 trial
Stéphane de Botton, Pau Montesinos, Andre C. Schuh, Cristina Papayannidis, Paresh Vyas, Andrew H. Wei, Hans Beier Ommen, С. В. Семочкин, Hee‐Je Kim, Richard A. Larson, Jaime Koprivnikar, Olga Frankfurt, Felicitas Thol, Jörg Chromik, Jenny Byrne, Arnaud Pigneux, Xavier Thomas, Olga Salamero, María‐Belén Vídriales, Vadim Doronin, Hartmut Döhner, Amir T. Fathi, Eric Laille, Xin Yu, Maroof Hasan, Patricia Martin‐Regueira, Courtney D. DiNardo
Abstract
This open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT02577406) compared enasidenib, an oral IDH2 (isocitrate dehydrogenase 2) inhibitor, with conventional care regimens (CCRs) in patients aged ≥60 years with late-stage, mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) relapsed/refractory (R/R) to 2 or 3 prior AML-directed therapies. Patients were first preselected to a CCR (azacitidine, intermediate-dose cytarabine, low-dose cytarabine, or supportive care) and then randomized (1:1) to enasidenib 100 mg per day or CCR. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR), hematologic improvement (HI), and transfusion independence (TI). Overall, 319 patients were randomized to enasidenib (n = 158) or CCR (n = 161). The median age was 71 years, median (range) enasidenib exposure was 142 days (3 to 1270), and CCR was 36 days (1 to 1166). One enasidenib (0.6%) and 20 CCR (12%) patients received no randomized treatment, and 30% and 43%, respectively, received subsequent AML-directed therapies during follow-up. The median OS with enasidenib vs CCR was 6.5 vs 6.2 months (HR [hazard ratio], 0.86; P = .23); 1-year survival was 37.5% vs 26.1%. Enasidenib meaningfully improved EFS (median, 4.9 vs 2.6 months with CCR; HR, 0.68; P = .008), TTF (median, 4.9 vs 1.9 months; HR, 0.53; P < .001), ORR (40.5% vs 9.9%; P <.001), HI (42.4% vs 11.2%), and red blood cell (RBC)-TI (31.7% vs 9.3%). Enasidenib safety was consistent with prior reports. The primary study endpoint was not met, but OS was confounded by early dropout and subsequent AML-directed therapies. Enasidenib provided meaningful benefits in EFS, TTF, ORR, HI, and RBC-TI in this heavily pretreated older mutant-IDH2 R/R AML population.